Google boss "very proud of our tax avoidance scheme"
234 replies, posted
Eric acted like a prick by boasting about Google's tax avoidance but if the government don't want lost taxes they should close their self-created loopholes.
You can't blame people for wanting to legally pay as little money as they can - same with the Jimmy Carr scandal. I bet you 90% of the people criticizing him would gladly use tax loopholes if they knew how.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;38818302]Lobbying is bad, yes. Lobbying causes bad things to happen, most likely.
Lobbying has also had effects that we're not going to be able to fully understand for years in terms of the services we get and have come to expect.
Lobbying should probably be done away with(companies don't need a voice at all, amirte?)[/QUOTE]
Lobbying is not bad, a group should be able to bring up their point of view to the government. Money should not be what makes that point of view heard though.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;38818292]Why can't we be mad at both?[/QUOTE]
Be mad at both then but that doesn't make a lick of fucking difference.
A system that is ripe for abuse exists. By allowing this system to exist, you're allowing the companies to take these actions. Why would you get mad at the symptoms of your problem and not your fucking problem
[editline]13th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Swilly;38818322]Lobbying is not bad, a group should be able to bring up their point of view to the government. Money should not be what makes that point of view heard though.[/QUOTE]
what should then
[editline]13th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;38818291]well they should?[/QUOTE]
Why should everyone share the same set of morals
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;38818328]
what should then[/QUOTE]
There are plenty of ways other than using money with a familiar faces to get your voice and opinion heard.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;38818328]Be mad at both then but that doesn't make a lick of fucking difference.
A system that is ripe for abuse exists. By allowing this system to exist, you're allowing the companies to take these actions. Why would you get mad at the symptoms of your problem and not your fucking problem
[editline]13th December 2012[/editline]
what should then
[editline]13th December 2012[/editline]
Why should everyone share the same set of morals
[/QUOTE]
why not? how are they not both problems? you can say one would not happen without the other, but that doesn't mean it could still be prevented without the original issue being solved
[QUOTE=Swilly;38818346]There are plenty of ways other than using money with a familiar faces to get your voice and opinion heard.[/QUOTE]
so it would come down to fame
which would then go down to money again
i don't see what you're getting at here
[editline]13th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;38818353][/QUOTE]
One problem exists to cause another problem to exist.
Get mad at your symptoms or get mad at the cause, your fucking choice.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;38818360]so it would come down to fame
which would then go down to money again
i don't see what you're getting at here[/QUOTE]
Or petitions, which can be done easily on the internet.
Or mass attention, which can be done with very little money on the internet now.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;38818360]so it would come down to fame
which would then go down to money again
i don't see what you're getting at here
[editline]13th December 2012[/editline]
One problem exists to cause another problem to exist.
Get mad at your symptoms or get mad at the cause, your fucking choice.[/QUOTE]
or both
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;38818360]
One problem exists to cause another problem to exist.
Get mad at your symptoms or get mad at the cause, your fucking choice.[/QUOTE]
Will stop acting like the businesses are just responding to the loopholes and not actually actively fighting to keep them there?
You're calling me naive.
[QUOTE=Wii60;38817605]more money more youtube redesigns[/QUOTE]
and more youtube money
[QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;38818353]why not? how are they not both problems? you can say one would not happen without the other, but that doesn't mean it could still be prevented without the original issue being solved[/QUOTE]
so you attack the symptoms then get mad that the cause still exists?
what your saying makes no sense to me frankly
Why would you fuck with the symptoms of your illness when you can go for the heart of the cause and start working from there.
You want to change how everyone sees morality about these things, the best way to do that is not going to be through forceful coercion of businesses to fit YOUR morality.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;38818393]so you attack the symptoms then get mad that the cause still exists?
what your saying makes no sense to me frankly
Why would you fuck with the symptoms of your illness when you can go for the heart of the cause and start working from there.
You want to change how everyone sees morality about these things, the best way to do that is not going to be through forceful coercion of businesses to fit YOUR morality.[/QUOTE]
Are you kidding me? That's a horrible metaphor because we take drugs all the time to remove the symptoms to function, we don't actually hit the cause.
[QUOTE=Swilly;38818379]Will stop acting like the businesses are just responding to the loopholes and not actually actively fighting to keep them there?
You're calling me naive.[/QUOTE]
No, i'm not acting like business aren't causing those loopholes in some cases. But how are you going to change the attitude of businesses through what you're calling morality?
I never called you naive either
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;38818393]so you attack the symptoms then get mad that the cause still exists?
what your saying makes no sense to me frankly
Why would you fuck with the symptoms of your illness when you can go for the heart of the cause and start working from there.
You want to change how everyone sees morality about these things, the best way to do that is not going to be through forceful coercion of businesses to fit YOUR morality.[/QUOTE]
well for one just because you can classify it as a symptom does not mean it cannot be prevented. two, you are assuming you can only care about one and not the other (i honestly have no idea why).
[QUOTE=Swilly;38818409]Are you kidding me? That's a horrible metaphor because we take drugs all the time to remove the symptoms to function.[/QUOTE]
with the goal of dealing with the initial problem. Closing the loopholes would be a way of dealing with this.
We also use medicines specifically to go after the ROOT problem and deal with it from there. It's only a horrible analogy if you take it that way.
[QUOTE=Kingy_ME;38818258]I want these big companies to pay their taxes but I agree; it's the government role to fix loopholes not companies role not to use them. I think we need a UN meeting or something to work out how to stop this type of [B]legal tax evasion[/B].[/QUOTE]
tax avoidance, tax evasion is when you illegally lower your tax liability. Important distinction as the latter can result in prison time & fines.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;38818413]No, i'm not acting like business aren't causing those loopholes in some cases. But how are you going to change the attitude of businesses through what you're calling morality?
I never called you naive either[/QUOTE]
Arman did, I didn't mean you personally. Sorry.
I'm not making a morality standpoint. I'm making a pragmatic standpoint that in the long run, businesses benefit more from people paying higher taxes because the increases funding in things like education and infrastructure upkeep and updating.
It also helps with matters of emergency like a hurricane trashing a large section of your nation and that stock piled money going to help and clean up without having to kick up more debt.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;38818328]Be mad at both then but that doesn't make a lick of fucking difference.
A system that is ripe for abuse exists. By allowing this system to exist, you're allowing the companies to take these actions. Why would you get mad at the symptoms of your problem and not your fucking problem[/QUOTE]
Complaining about the government on an internet forum won't make a lick of difference either. No one here is "allowing the system to exist", we just have no influence on whether it does or not.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;38818427]with the goal of dealing with the initial problem. Closing the loopholes would be a way of dealing with this.
We also use medicines specifically to go after the ROOT problem and deal with it from there. It's only a horrible analogy if you take it that way.[/QUOTE]
that's not true. oftentimes medicines avoid the "root" of the issue completely, like sleep aids
Schmidt is right: it is capitalism.
Google isn't going to refrain from using tax avoidance because neither will any other company. They have no incentive to put themselves down a polybillion just for the good of British welfare cheques.
Anyone saying that they should, indeed has a very naive and optimistic view of the workings behind our society. Even if it's our big lovable Googley-bear, it would be absolutely stupid to their operation to WILLINGLY pay taxes when they can legally withhold them. Nobody likes taxes, from us to Google. As someone else said above, most of the people here would probably use tax avoidance schemes if they could, and Google is no different.
Besides, what if Google is such a "nice" company and can afford to give computers to schools, and nearly free 500mb/s download speeds to entire areas BECAUSE they save billions through tax avoidance?
You all have good intentions, but once again people barely think about things.
This is why we need to abolish loopholes and establish an across-the-board flat tax.
[QUOTE=Callius;38818439]tax avoidance, tax evasion is when you illegally lower your tax liability. Important distinction as the latter can result in prison time & fines.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, it's fixed now.
[QUOTE=Ardosos;38818531]This is why we need to abolish loopholes and establish an across-the-board flat tax.[/QUOTE]
oooooooh my god
[QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;38818562]oooooooh my god[/QUOTE]
Can you offer a single legitimate argument against the flat tax model? Because I have yet to hear one.
No, no I can't.
[QUOTE=demoguy08;38818022]Apparently the sentiment is "a business have no moral obligations". That might be true juridically speaking but is that [I]really[/I] the kind of world we want to live in?
If you seriously have to ask why people find this offensive I start to wonder how disjointed you must be from society[/QUOTE]
yeah you'd have to be someone who is living a life apart from most people's, like a millionaire's life -oh wait
I appreciate the companies shouldn't do this sort of thing, but I can't say I wouldn't if it was possible and legal. The system should just be adjusted so that EVERY company pays, rather than some and not others.
[QUOTE=Ardosos;38818582]Can you offer a single legitimate argument against the flat tax model? Because I have yet to hear one.[/QUOTE]
Flat taxes are regressive in nature, and widen the already enormous wealth gap. Which is why most 1st World countries avoid it. Before you say "argument ad populum", this belief is not based on a bandwagon notion, but more that empirical studies and data do not support flat taxes. All the flat tax advocates are arguing something that only works on paper, never in practice. Because various tax policies from most 1st world countries are based on facts, naturally most don't do flat taxes, so you can never accuse me of "argument ad populum" or bandwagoning because that'd be like saying I'm bandwagoning for saying the Earth revolves around the Sun and 1+1=2.
I honestly don't know anything about flat tax other than that it sounds like something ron paul supporters would get behind just by the name alone
[QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;38818745]I honestly don't know anything about flat tax other than that it sounds like something ron paul supporters would get behind just by the name alone[/QUOTE]
They're a major proponent along side other libertarians.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.